Howard Stern Exposes Democracy

Chris | InformationLiberation

Howard Stern shows why democracy is one of the worst forms of government imaginable, your vote is equal to these clueless morons. This video is supposed to expose Obama supporters, but it really exposes democracy itself, rule by whoever can appeal best to the "average American," a.k.a. the mass idiot.

Howard Stern contributors Sal and Richard travel to Harlem to interview Obama supporters and ask them why they are voting for Obama.

Stern and his crew ask denizens of Harlem various outrageous questions, including if they believe Obama will find and kill Osama bin Laden; if Romney is a Muslim and if Obama is a Mormon; if Obama made the right choice by picking Paul Ryan as his running mate and if he did it because he is black.

One interviewee was under the impression that 2008 Republican nominee John McCain is also running this time.

"Just trust me, not one person knew that Osama bin Laden was dead," Stern said during the segment.

"Well, we're obviously dealing with a whole population that doesn't listen to the newscasts or read a newspaper," co-host Robin Quivers said.

And yet people think it's perfectly rational to let these same people "vote" on how they live their lives. These same idiots decide what your tax rate should be, what your drug laws should be, they support every new idiotic law to "get tough on crime" and now we have the highest amount of people imprisoned in the entire world. Democracy is not a civilizing force, it's barbaric mob rule held together by violent savagery. And yes, the same goes for a "republic," which is just democracy with one more level.
_
Chris runs the website InformationLiberation.com, you can read more of his writings here. Follow infolib on twitter here.

The problem being, it's the current state of 'control' that has made the population 'knuckle-dragging imbeciles'. Remove the control of government that creates horrible education opportunities, introduces drugs into specific societies to eradicate and degrade the population, and uses 'laws' and 'regulations' to keep students that can excel at a tremendous rate from being able to advance in their education all because one student in a class he is not prepared for cannot keep up with the course material, and society gains. In a society where actual free market enterprise exists, good education and opportunities will be in demand, which means better teachers, courses and material tailored to each students specific needs, and no hurting the educators because of low standardized testing scores - which mainly occurs in areas that didn't have money enough to have proper education materials in the first place, leaving them with even less money to try and improve with. Inanity.

- Individuals take care of themselves according to their own personal needs and desires.
- Knuckle-dragging imbeciles tend to make bad decisions that lead toward self-destruction

the state attempts to protect knuckle-dragging imbeciles from suffering the consequences of their self-destructive actions by limiting all of their actions as a whole. The rationale is that knuckle-dragging imbeciles will be less likely to destroy themselves if they can be prevented from performing certain actions in the first place.

- Not all of us are morons who need to be protected from our own unwitting self-destruction
- The state, in its attempt to save the morons from themselves, prevents all individuals from performing all kinds of arbitrary actions

is the state's cause a noble one? perhaps if you are knuckle-dragging imbecile who wants to do all kinds of stupid self-destructive crap and you need to live in an environment where you will be forced from causing harm to yourself. but what if you're not?

is it fair to force healthy productive individuals to live in an environment that is made for morons? is it fair to force those same healthy productive individuals to pay for the creation and maintenance of such an environment?

It depends what you mean by "unlimited freedom," if you mean the freedom to kill people and violate other peoples' "rights," then that's the problem right there. Freedom is the freedom to be free from other people's aggression, not to commit aggression yourself, as that takes away someone else's freedom.

- The state is evil. Let's stop there, the state is evil as it's based in aggression and taking people's freedom, even a "constitutional republic" requires extortion to fund even the most basic government. That's the main issue, people taking care of themselves is the after-effect, I believe that would be the case as people know what's best for themselves, and no central planner could possibly act in the best interests of everyone in society when each individual's personal goals and aspirations are frequently contradictory and always entirely unique.

- The stupidity of the "average American." It's not contradictory if your definition of freedom is freedom from aggression, rather than the freedom to impose your will on others free of consequences. I want actual freedom for myself, I want to be free of other's aggression, I force my will on no one, I simply want no one to force their will on me.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.